Who are those people we call farmers?

What is it about?

Based on interviews with 624 rural households from Embu and Kitui in eastern Kenya, a new publication found that although 65% of the households aspired to increase their farm incomes only 6% aspired their children to become farmers. Closely linked to a recently published theoretical paper (DOI: 10.1177/0030727018766940) on the importance of aspirations, this publication focuses on household aspirations to understand better the potential for technology adoption to improve agricultural performance. When technologies are developed and released, it is assumed that all rural households would want to increase their farm productivity, but the reality is complex. The publication suggests that the choice of technologies depends on a household’s situation and potential to invest but also, and possibly more importantly, their aspirational income structure. The authors build on the framework of livelihood strategies of the poor developed by Dorward et al. (2009) that distinguishes between ‘Hanging in’, ‘Stepping up’, and ‘Stepping out’. The authors’ findings highlight the importance of carefully distinguishing between different types of rural households. This distinction must go beyond farming and non-farming households, by further accounting for differences within income portfolios but also aspirations. Avoiding the trap of calling all households with farm activity ‘farmers’ and assuming they have no other interests, may increase the match between demands and technology development. How can research consider the future of smallholder farmers? Considering non-farm aspirations in rural contexts is clearly important; they may influence household perceptions of the relative value of agricultural innovations and hence their choice to adopt – or not. Developmental challenges such as overcoming poverty are complex and market-driven solutions/interventions alone are not enough. Market-oriented development can help transform farms but it might not necessarily work for everyone. Out of the 624 households that were interviewed, only 24% were full time farmers and yet 3/4th of the total households identified themselves as farmers. Another interesting result in the publication is that although 32% of households belonged to the mixed income and 30% belonged to non-farming groups, the majority of the households (65%) aspired to increase their farm income. Farm aspirations included commercial farming, irrigation or intensifying farming through cash crops. So how does this relate to agricultural technologies provided by the CGIAR and others? For instance, households that aim to step out of agriculture might look at farming as an investment opportunity to generate revenue for off-farm activities. In this case, households might need technologies to increase their profits by reducing labour costs. At the same time, stepping out households might look at agriculture as a safety net and maintain it purely for home consumption. Appropriate technologies for such households might be low input, pest and disease-tolerant non-hybrid varieties that require less inputs and provide stable but relatively low yields. Aside from their aspired state, households might not have the same capacity to invest. For example, some households might invest in irrigation or more expensive livestock breeds. On the other hand, poorer households aspiring to increase their gains from farming would need technologies that are reliable but require lower input levels. Appropriate interventions here might be to introduce better agronomic management practices or agroforestry with small ruminants which may increase labour demands but lower cash inputs. On a more dramatic result, v only 6% of the households interviewed hoped for a future in farming for their children. This is in stark contrast to their personal aspirations and investment plans, which mostly involve expansion or intensification of farming. Though all poor households are probably looking for quick wins, this may mean that even wealthier households might not have the long-term aspirations needed for investments in practices with delayed benefits such as soil fertility management. There are also implications for changes in land use patterns, currently characterized by high levels of land fragmentation and densely populated areas. If households increasingly step out of farming, would this reverse the trend and enable consolidation of land for the next generation, e.g., through people selling / renting out their land? Or is the cultural attachment to land too strong and will agricultural areas become increasingly fragmented into smaller plots unable to produce excess food for sale to feed a burgeoning population? If the cultural attachment and safety net considerations dominate, would more comprehensive governmental safety net programs overcome this and enable land consolidation towards households aspiring to farm? Finally, what are the implications for agricultural research and global development goals and food security of the nation and its poorest members with limited alternatives? This publication contextualizes the traditional approach of looking at agriculture as an engine for growth and aims to broaden people’s understanding of rural realities and start a discussion of the implications of the resulting questions for rural development. It is time for research to better understand complex rural livelihoods and the underlying drivers of their evolution, to improve the targeting of interventions towards the most appropriate households and support their needs more effectively. This may also help in linking with the wider rural development agenda beyond the farm boundaries. Specifically, the authors hope that the agricultural research for development sector will more actively consider the implications of rural household diversity and especially their aspirations for research and interventions. They urge the field to listen better to those people we call ‘farmers’ in order to offer solutions that meet their aspirations and realities. The research was funded by the CGIAR Research Program on the Dryland Systems and the Policies, Institutions and Markets, ICRISAT and the Netherlands Junior Professional Officer Programme.

Featured Image